Probably no, or they saw it and let it slip, making a glitch add tat it is realland not scripted

I have been pretty torn about this one. Im not sure I want to spend the resources that I don't really have to get a PS4 in the first place, but I've done my best to play every Final Fantasy out there. I was worried this might be the first one that slips by, but now I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It looks pretty horrible!

I 100% agree that not only is Bernie the better candidate and would make a better President than either Clinton or Trump, he would also have a better chance of beating Trump.

Republicans might not like Sanders on a political level ("ermahgerd, teh socialism is coming!", etc), but they DESPISE Clinton on a personal level.

And let's be honest, most of that has nothing to do with her real or perceived failings.. it's because
a) she's a woman and
b) she was married to Bill.

But that is irrelevant because Clinton is the candidate.

Addressing your other points:
"Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.

Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill)"

Sorry, I missed the part where Bill Clinton was the nominee. Leaving aside the dubious nature of the allegations against him, the point is that he's not the candidate, Hillary is.

The email thing was bad, but as has been gone over many times, it was stupid rather than malicious.

"Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?"

Easy, Trump is worse. When did we all decide that being able to make deals was a bad thing? That's what politics is. If you don't know the system, you will get railroaded.

Now, my preference would have been for someone who knows the system and wants to change it, but as that's not going to happen, I'll take someone who can get shit done over an inexperienced buffon any day.

Once again, I completely agree that Bernie would have stood a better chance than Hillary of being elected, but it pretty much doesn't matter anymore. Everyday that passes Trump slips further behind, giving me some small hope for humanity.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Like above, imagine wearing a few hundred pound backpack while you're upside down. You couldn't hold it. Same thing, just the other way around. As soon as the chute deployed it would slip right off him.

He'd hit the ground like a Hefty bag full of vegetable soup.

k, I'm going Wednesday Addams on yall, so fair warning if you can't stomach the grotesque. It's just my sense of humor is very dark. This is one of the few times I'll do you a favor by breaking the fourth wall of my videosift persona. Mainly because I enjoyed this video and the concept is really neat; but, I can't help my brain from going where it goes in its logical conclusions. It's tldr so you'll skip it anyway. Doesn't matter to me, first and foremost, I post for me, not you -- though I acknowledge it is public and therefore for the public's consumption, it is so purely for reasons of science:

Is there a section at the Empathy Museum for empathizing with EMT drivers? Seeing dead and dying bodies in every conceivable way on a daily basis. How do you try on those shoes?

A friend of mine who was a technician for many years told me he witnessed dozens of different forms of decapitation and loads of ways a person can lose one or more or all of their limbs; or, how about this one -- a man who squatted over a plunger he had suctioned to the bottom of a tub because he was too much of a prude to buy a dildo, slipped in the tub while he was pleasuring himself anally...

It tore up through his bowels and punctured out of his abdomen. He was still alive but out cold from the shock while his bowels flooded his insides; dead not long after his wife had made the call.

Listening to an EMT driver discuss their years of experience is one of the best ways to empathize with the human condition.

Or here's another good one: Go work in a nursing home and learn what being old and dying is like.

But cool, I get to wear oversized women's shoes... wait, I already do that. Here, empathize with me: wear pumps and stockings for an hour, then chuck tailors and socks for two hours, then pumps, then chuck tailors, then pumps, then chuck tailors.

I'm gonna open myself a true empathy museum in collaboration with the Holocaust Museum. Could you imagine if the Holocaust Museum had you wear the shoes of dead Jews? Would anyone take that seriously? I seriously doubt it.

Aside from alternating between gender-based shoes, my empathy museum will also allow you to interact with people who have low functioning autism and have a discussion with a man who has severe brain damage because his dad was involved in organized crime and the price of not paying a debt on time was that his family got murdered before his very eyes. Lucky for him, only brain damage. Sole survivor. Let him regale you with tales of woes made entirely of spitting sounds and aimless staring.

Empathy's a crazy thing. Makes you want to crawl inside a hole sometimes. But if you emerge sane and ready to TRULY empathize by doing a goddamn thing about it -- and not just proclaim your civil rights and be angry at the injustices of the world and how unfair your lot or the lot of other pitiful humans are -- maybe you'll have what it takes to gain an iota of true humanity. That's what my empathy museum is all about.

Not that I'm against this form of chic empathy. I quite enjoy art installations.

Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the frogs of war.

These use wind-drag to generate movement. So the scoop is grabbing the wind, while the backside of the opposing panel is letting more wind slip by. The opposing panel is still receiving some of the force of the wind, so it will help govern the speed.

The big windmill types most people are familiar with use an aerofoil, so it's actually the wind generating lift on one side which is turned into rotational force. Since there is no opposing drag created in the design they will get into over speed conditions.

To show up the greatest country in the world? Revenge? To destabilise Clinton's campaign?

You can drop a bomb, but if it's not at the right time, or place, the damage can be ignored. Timing of delivery is everything.

Or, alternately, it's a bluff to cause panic in which case something might slip out.

Jeebus, have you guys ever played poker? \= )

The president also has the power to sink us if his party is in control of congress and goes along with any stupid thing he does, and so does the Supreme Court (which will essentially belong to whoever is the next president).
If Clinton only worked within a broken system, she might be forgiven, but she doesn't. This latest DNC collusion fiasco is just the latest shining example of how she and her team flagrantly disregards the rules if they aren't convenient for her. She just gave Shultz a nice position in her campaign and you can bet she'll have a cabinet position if Clinton wins for blatantly rigging the primary for her, which is not the action of someone who values ethics.
Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but by someone that believes that rules and laws apply to everyone including them, not someone who's an expert at slipping through loopholes and skirting the rules if not breaking them outright then lying about it....which is either major party candidate.
IMO, Clinton is the fairly competent but corrupt one, Trump is fairly incompetent and corrupt and pathological and racist and narcissistic and just a terrible human being. I'm not certain which is more dangerous, because I can't tell what either of them will actually do in any situation beyond whatever appears to benefit them most at the time.

I, for one, am glad we don't have a two party system and I have other choices. I will only vote for someone I want to be president, and refuse to cast a vote against someone. That's what has us in this mess.

That was fucking brilliant...
He used to slip up occasionally on the daily show...like a dad slips up.

and they let it go.
but he let it loose and they chopped it...live that's fucking skill.

@Engels You COULD NOT be more wrong about me. However, I so deeply love that image, I'm going to stick with it.

(I was fairly sure your comment wasn't directed at me, however it did LAND on me, because my monocle slipped there. Codswallop. Lovely lovely monocle-ish word that is still denigrating instead of descriptive. I prefer description when in monocle mode.)

And yeah. Internet arguments. I'm severely allergic to them now.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

They were playing with the police the entire time, pretty much all of those bikes could outrun even the police helicopter if they wanted to. (not exaggerating)

If the police took to more aggressive stopping tactics, the riders would simply give it all the beans and disappear as soon as they saw them, instead of goading them like they did in that vid.

They could try and set up a fortified position in their path or take swipes into the crowd but that leads into the big one for me; many of them likely have guns & other weapons! If the police escalate the violence to death and serious injury by ramming & spike traps or back them into a corner, they would be giving the bikers incentive to fight back.

I might argue that escalation of violence would be more dangerous to the public than the anti-social riding.

There was a couple of 100 of them at least. Unless you are going to call in the national guard or some such, no police force is likely to have the manpower to win that fight if it came to it. (these people are demonstrably a bit crazy after all)

The police aren't stupid. Ethics aside, a gang of a few 100 lunatics is just more than almost any police force can deal with when together. That's why they don't scatter, they know that in a pack they are basically untouchable.

Police follow and hope to catch out the ones that fall off or otherwise make a mistake. Beyond that all they can really do is go after the gang in the traditional way; informants, infiltrators, slip ups and so on.

I understand the outrage, but practically speaking there is little more can be done other than subsequent investigations by the gang unit. Very difficult as you can't prove a given bike was involved without plates and chassis numbers. Or for that matter that a given individual was riding it at the time anyway.

bernie will now slip away into irrelevancy, while the democrats simply move on without him. he fucking lost, get over it.

Groucho, wasn't it, who said

I slip on a banana peel, it's tragedy. You slip, it is comedy. Or something like that.

*promote

EDIT: Looking for the actual quote and who said it, I found this from Mel Brooks:

“Tragedy is when I get a hangnail. Comedy is when someone else falls into an open sewer and dies.”